Comparison of DNA methylation patterns of parentally imprinted genes in placenta derived from IVF conceptions in two different culture media.
DNA methylation
embryo culture medium
epigenetics
human
imprinting
placenta
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 03 2020
27 03 2020
Historique:
received:
14
10
2019
revised:
18
12
2019
pubmed:
31
3
2020
medline:
28
4
2021
entrez:
31
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Is there a difference in DNA methylation status of imprinted genes in placentas derived from IVF conceptions where embryo culture was performed in human tubal fluid (HTF) versus G5 culture medium? We found no statistically significant differences in the mean DNA methylation status of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with parentally imprinted genes in placentas derived from IVF conceptions cultured in HTF versus G5 culture medium. Animal studies indicate that the embryo culture environment affects the DNA methylation status of the embryo. In humans, birthweight is known to be affected by the type of embryo culture medium used. The effect of embryo culture media on pregnancy, birth and child development may thus be mediated by differential methylation of parentally imprinted genes in the placenta. To identify differential DNA methylation of imprinted genes in human placenta derived from IVF conceptions exposed to HTF or G5 embryo culture medium, placenta samples (n = 43 for HTF, n = 54 for G5) were collected between 2010 and 2012 s as part of a multi-center randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands comparing these embryo culture media. Placenta samples from 69 naturally conceived (NC) live births were collected during 2008-2013 in the Netherlands as reference material. To identify differential DNA methylation of imprinted genes, we opted for an amplicon-based sequencing strategy on an Illumina MiSeq sequencing platform. DNA was isolated and 34 DMRs associated with well-defined parentally imprinted genes were amplified in a two-step PCR before sequencing using MiSeq technology. Sequencing data were analyzed in a multivariate fashion to eliminate possible confounding effects. We found no statistically significant differences in the mean DNA methylation status of any of the imprinted DMRs in placentas derived from IVF conceptions cultured in HTF or G5 culture medium. We also did not observe any differences in the mean methylation status per amplicon nor in the variance in methylation per amplicon between the two culture medium. groups. A separate surrogate variable analysis also demonstrated that the IVF culture medium was not associated with the DNA methylation status of these DMRs. The mean methylation level and variance per CpG was equal between HTF and G5 placenta. Additional comparison of DNA methylation status of NC placenta samples revealed no statistically significant differences in mean amplicon and CpG methylation between G5, HTF and NC placenta; however, the number of placenta samples exhibiting outlier methylation levels was higher in IVF placenta compared to NC (P < 0.00001). Also, we were able to identify 37 CpG sites that uniquely displayed outlier methylation in G5 placentas and 32 CpG sites that uniquely displayed outlier methylation in HTF. In 8/37 (G5) and 4/32 (HTF) unique outliers CpGs, a medium-specific unique outlier could be directly correlated to outlier methylation of the entire amplicon. Due to practical reasons, not all placentas were collected during the trial, and we collected the placentas from natural conceptions from a different cohort, potentially creating bias. We limited ourselves to the DNA methylation status of 34 imprinted DMRs, and we studied only the placenta and no other embryo-derived tissues. It has often been postulated, but has yet to be rigorously tested, that imprinting mediates the effects of embryo culture conditions on pregnancy, birth and child development in humans. Since we did not detect any statistically significant effects of embryo culture conditions on methylation status of imprinted genes in the placenta, this suggests that other unexplored mechanisms may underlie these effects. The biological and clinical relevance of detected outliers with respect to methylation levels of CpGs and DMR require additional analysis in a larger sample size as well. Given the importance and the growing number of children born through IVF, research into these molecular mechanisms is urgently needed. This study was funded by the March of Dimes grant number #6-FY13-153. The authors have no conflicts of interest. Placental biopsies were obtained under Netherlands Trial Registry number 1979 and 1298.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32222762
pii: 5812775
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa004
pmc: PMC7105329
doi:
Substances chimiques
Culture Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
516-528Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
Hypertens Pregnancy. 2009 Feb;28(1):1-12
pubmed: 19165665
Hum Reprod. 2018 Feb 1;33(2):331-340
pubmed: 29237055
Fertil Steril. 2013 Nov;100(5):1283-8
pubmed: 23916797
Development. 2004 Aug;131(15):3727-35
pubmed: 15240554
Hum Reprod. 2014 Oct 10;29(10):2326-32
pubmed: 25069503
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Apr 20;43(7):e47
pubmed: 25605792
Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2012 Dec;96(4):299-314
pubmed: 24203919
J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2018 Feb;9(1):87-94
pubmed: 28764817
Biol Reprod. 2010 Dec;83(6):938-50
pubmed: 20702853
Biol Reprod. 2014 Apr 17;90(4):80
pubmed: 24621920
Nature. 2016 May 04;533(7602):251-4
pubmed: 27144363
Placenta. 2010 Dec;31(12):1070-7
pubmed: 20947161
BJOG. 2011 Aug;118(9):1084-9
pubmed: 21585640
Nat Rev Genet. 2001 Jan;2(1):21-32
pubmed: 11253064
Cell Res. 2015 Jan;25(1):67-79
pubmed: 25475058
Fertil Steril. 2014 Dec;102(6):1700-7.e1
pubmed: 25256932
Hum Reprod. 2015 Oct;30(10):2303-11
pubmed: 26202924
Hum Reprod. 2012 Jul;27(7):1966-76
pubmed: 22552689
Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1645-1656
pubmed: 30032175
Hum Reprod. 2015 Mar;30(3):530-42
pubmed: 25574031
BMJ. 2004 Jan 31;328(7434):261
pubmed: 14742347
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 10;366(19):1803-13
pubmed: 22559061
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):551-63
pubmed: 14990421
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jul 01;29(13):1647-53
pubmed: 23658421
Hum Reprod. 2016 Feb;31(2):298-311
pubmed: 26677958
Hum Mol Genet. 2008 Jan 1;17(1):1-14
pubmed: 17901045
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 02;5:17311
pubmed: 26626153
Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857-72
pubmed: 9595616
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 20;(11):CD007876
pubmed: 26585317
Hum Reprod Open. 2017 Aug 29;2017(2):hox012
pubmed: 31486803
Nat Cell Biol. 2016 Jun;18(6):700-708
pubmed: 27144686
Biol Reprod. 2001 Mar;64(3):918-26
pubmed: 11207209
Hum Mol Genet. 2016 Jan 1;25(1):123-9
pubmed: 26566672
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011 Dec 15;57(7):1222-9
pubmed: 22095929
Hum Reprod. 2012 Feb;27(2):375-9
pubmed: 22128298
Hum Reprod. 2006 Sep;21(9):2353-8
pubmed: 16728419
Epigenetics Chromatin. 2011 Jan 31;4(1):1
pubmed: 21281512
Reproduction. 2004 Sep;128(3):301-11
pubmed: 15333781
Hum Reprod Update. 2011 May-Jun;17(3):397-417
pubmed: 20959349
Bioinformatics. 2011 Jun 1;27(11):1571-2
pubmed: 21493656
PLoS Genet. 2007 Sep;3(9):1724-35
pubmed: 17907809
Hum Reprod. 2013 Dec;28(12):3207-14
pubmed: 24108218
Hum Mol Genet. 2019 Feb 1;28(3):372-385
pubmed: 30239726
Hum Reprod Update. 2013 Jul-Aug;19(4):330-53
pubmed: 23449641
Hum Reprod. 2014 Dec;29(12):2821-31
pubmed: 25316457
PLoS Genet. 2010 Jul 22;6(7):e1001033
pubmed: 20661447
Hum Reprod. 2010 Mar;25(3):605-12
pubmed: 20085915
Fertil Steril. 2011 Dec;96(6):1417-1423.e9
pubmed: 21982732
Epigenetics. 2015;10(6):474-83
pubmed: 25580569
BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Nov 25;17(1):483
pubmed: 27884101
Hum Reprod. 2016 Oct;31(10):2219-30
pubmed: 27554441
Hum Reprod. 2013 Jul;28(7):1762-7
pubmed: 23595972